On 2013-12-18 22:32, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> You're not really free to assume it - you'll need an exception handler
> for the other-than-1 case, or your code might blow up.
>
> This seems to be codifying a bad pattern, which should be using
> array_lower() and array_upper() instead.
That's the entire point -- I *want* my code to blow up. If someone
passes a multi-dimensional array to a function that assumes its input is
one-dimensional and its indexes start from 1, I want it to be obvious
that the caller did something wrong. Now I either copy-paste lines and
lines of codes to always test for the weird cases or my code breaks in
subtle ways.
This is no different from an Assert() somewhere -- if the caller breaks
the documented interface, it's his problem, not mine. And I don't want
to waste my time coding around the fact that this simple thing is so
hard to do in PG.
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
